Luther Said: Doing Good Is More Dangerous Than Sinning

The web page The Truth About Martin Luther and Why So Few Read His Works, presents a number of Luther quotes and confidently states, "You'll find that not one of these passages means anything apart from what appears here; indeed, I challenge you to try to imagine any context that could possibly change the meaning of these words." With this challenge in mind, they present the following Luther quote with accompanying commentary:

Luther Said: Doing Good Is More Dangerous Than Sinning
"Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin." (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122.)


You must be thinking, "What? Could he possibly have written what I thought I just read? 'It is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.'" Well okay, read it again, just to make sure. We'll wait. See? You were right the first time. Luther cautions us against good and upright actions. He says, don't worry about sin -- Jesus will take care of it. But doing good -- that you'd better watch out for. Especially if you think being kind and generous and loving will affect your outcome at the final judgment. In his hubris, he ignores verse after verse of Scripture — New Testament and Old — where we are told that the way we live out our faith will be the criterion upon which we will be judged. As Paul makes eminently clear in Rom. 2: 5-11, "...the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works." And again in 2 Cor. 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat... so that each one may receive recompense , according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil." Luther was utterly and monumentally wrong -- wrong for the ages.

Documentation
The web page cites "Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122." It's extremely unlikely  "Wittenberg, VI" was actually utilized. This refers to the earliest collection of Luther's Works (dating 1539-59).  Rather, the work of Roman Catholic author, Father Patrick O'Hare's book, The Facts About Luther serves as the context for this quote. There is indeed irony here, because the web site hosting this web page is opposed to Romanism. In other words, this web site, while vehemently opposed to Romanism doesn't mind using Romanist argumentation when it's suits their purposes.

Father O'Hare states,

It cannot be denied that Luther taught that "good works are useless," that "they are sin," and, in fact, "impossible." In his "Babylonian Captivity" (Chap. de Bapt.) he says, "The way to heaven is narrow; if you wish to pass through it, throw away your good works." "Those pious souls," he says further, "who do good to gain the kingdom of heaven, not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin." (Wittenb. VI. 160.) Thus, good works, the practice of piety, and the observance of the Divine commandments, the only way, according to Jesus Christ, which leads to eternal life, are in his estimation troublesome superfluities, of which Christian liberty must rid us. Rather, according to this false teacher, they are invincible obstacles to salvation, if one places the least reliance upon them. "Faith alone," said he, "is necessary for Justification: nothing else is commanded or forbidden." "Believe, and henceforth you are as holy as St. Peter."

I've been through enough of these old quotes to know the way things were cited in previous generations often makes what should be easy to locate very difficult. Often the quotes cited are loose translations (maybe not even from the original language the quote was in) and may not actually be to the source cited. O'Hare refers to one Luther's main treatises, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, specifically, the chapter on "Baptism."  This was was one of those times in which trying to figure out what O'Hare was specifically referring to wasn't easy to determine.  I was helped by another similar citation and reference by this old Romanist source:

Let us give a few other texts from Luther, for they are more conclusive than argument. "How rich is the Christian! Even if he would he could not be disinherited by sin: not to believe in the Son of God is the only sin in this world. Believe, therefore, and you are sure of your salvation." (Luther, "Captivity of Babylon.") "There is no more dangerous, more pernicious scandal than a good life exteriorly manifested by good works. Pious souls who do good to gain the kingdom of heaven not only will never reach it, but will be counted among the damned." (Works of Luther, vol. vi.) "The Gospel does not ask our works for our justification; on the contrary, it condemns these works." "Murder, theft are not sins so great as to wish to reach heaven through good works, which are the things most prejudicial to salvation." (Sermons inedits publics par Mack.)

The similarities of these two English renderings, both appealing to volume vi of the Wittenberg collection of Luther's Works, and both mentioning the Babylon Captivity treatise make it probable  that Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church is indeed the source in question.

Context
If the quote in question does come from the Babylonian Captivity treatise, here's how Luther presents the argument. The sacrament of Baptism has a mighty power, and men must have faith in it as divine work of God:

Now, the first thing to be considered about baptism is the divine promise, which says: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” [Mark 16:16]. This promise must be set far above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever else man has introduced, for on it all our salvation depends. For unless faith is present or is conferred in baptism, baptism will profit us nothing; indeed, it will become a hindrance to us, not only at the moment when it is received, but throughout the rest of our lives. That kind of unbelief accuses God’s promise of being a lie, and this is the greatest of all sins. If we set ourselves to this exercise of faith, we shall at once perceive how difficult it is to believe this promise of God. For our human weakness, conscious of its sins, finds nothing more difficult to believe than that it is saved or will be saved; and yet, unless it does believe this, it cannot be saved, because it does not believe the truth of God that promises salvation. (LW 36:58).

Since baptism is a divine promise, it should be used to nourish faith. When a Christian struggles against sin and doubt, he needs to be reminded of his baptism:

Therefore, when we rise from our sins or repent, we are merely returning to the power and the faith of baptism from which we fell, and finding our way back to the promise then made to us, which we deserted when we sinned. For the truth of the promise once made remains steadfast, always ready to receive us back with open arms when we return. And this, if I mistake not, is what they mean when they say, though obscurely, that baptism is the first sacrament and the foundation of all the others, without which none of the others can be received.(LW 36:59)

What had happened though, according to Luther, is that the Roman church rather instructed to men to place their hope in penance rather than in their baptism:

But Satan, though he could not quench the power of baptism in little children, nevertheless succeeded in quenching it in all adults, so that now there are scarcely any who call to mind their own baptism, and still fewer who glory in it; so many other ways have been discovered for remitting sins and getting to heaven. The source of these false opinions is that dangerous saying of St. Jerome—either unhappily phrased or wrongly interpreted—in which he terms penance “the second plank after shipwreck,” as if baptism were not penance. Hence, when men have fallen into sin, they despair of the “first plank,” which is the ship, as if it had gone under, and begin to put all their trust and faith in the second plank, which is penance. This has given rise to those endless burdens of vows, religious orders, works, satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and monastic sects, and from them in turn has arisen that flood of books, questions, opinions, and man-made ordinances which the whole world cannot contain. Thus the church of God is incomparably worse off under this tyranny than the synagogue or any other nation under heaven ever was. (LW 36:57)

The quote in question appears after this basic argumentation:

Thus you see how rich a Christian is, that is, one who has been baptized! Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins, so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because he cannot deny himself if you confess him and faithfully cling to him in his promise. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction, along with all those carefully devised exercises of men: if you rely on them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is done without faith in God’s truth is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit [Eccles. 1:2, 14]. (LW 36:60)

Conclusion
When some read citations like this from Luther, they assume Luther was promoting antinomianism. This would be grossly incorrect.  The thrust of Luther's thought is to not rely on one's own work for salvation, which is what was popularly going on in Luther's day. After the quote in question, Luther goes on to say:

Beware, therefore, that the external pomp of works and the deceits of man-made ordinances do not deceive you, lest you wrong the divine truth and your faith. If you would be saved, you must begin with the faith of the sacraments, without any works whatever. The works will follow faith, but do not think too lightly of faith, for it is the most excellent and difficult of all works. Through it alone you will be saved, even if you should be compelled to do without any other works. For faith is a work of God, not of man, as Paul teaches [Eph. 2:8]. The other works he works through us and with our help, but this one alone he works in us and without our help. (LW 36:62).

Luther and Baptism

"Could you comment on the following work of Luther where he states that salvation comes by baptism. Luther stated in his large Catechism 1529 used to aid clergy: "But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body." ... No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than Baptism, for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire"[source].

Sure. Keep in mind though, I'm not a Lutheran, so while I can explain his view of baptism, this doesn't mean I hold to Luther's view of baptism.

The quote you've posted is from the end of Luther's exposition of baptism in his Large Catechism. That is, it's part of the conclusion of his previous argumentation. This section of the Large Catechism is a fairly easy read for anyone interested in Luther's view on this subject.

My basic explanation of Luther's view is thus: Luther held the sacraments are a form of the Word of God. Luther believed that the Word of God was oral, written, and sacramental. The Word comes to change our hearts, minds, reason, and will. If one is baptized in faith, they have received one of the promises that God will be their savior. It is His promise to us that he will save those with faith. Luther held that Word of promise is the power of God unto salvation, not works of penance like the Romanists of his day popularly held. Baptism establishes that we are children of God. Luther argued that the validity of the promise does not rest on faith. Faith is simply the response. It grasps and makes use of the benefits, but the promise of God is there. Christ saves, not faith. Faith only receives the salvation Christ gives. Luther believed that God, through the power of His Word, establishes the relationship with His people.

If you read through the link to the Catechism (I've provided above), you'll notice Luther places a heavy emphasis on Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be." So, with the quote you've asked me about, Luther is using baptism as an assurance of salvation, or holding God to His Word. He says in the Catechism,

"...since we now know what Baptism is and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn for what purpose it was instituted, that is, what benefits, gifts, and effects it brings. Nor can we understand this better than from the words of Christ quoted above, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to “be saved.” To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever."

He then states,

Our know-it-alls, the new spirits, assert that faith alone saves and that works and external things contribute nothing to this end. We answer: It is true, nothing that is in us does it but faith, as we shall hear later on. but these leaders of the blind are unwilling to see that faith must have something to believe — something to which it may cling and upon which it may stand. Thus faith clings to the water and believes it to be Baptism in which there is sheer salvation and life, not through the water, as we have sufficiently stated, but through its incorporation with God’s Word and ordinance and the joining of his name to it. When I believe this, what else is it but believing in God as the one who has implanted his Word in this external ordinance and offered it to us so that we may grasp the treasure it contains?

Baptism is God's Word and God's Promise. According to Luther it is God's work:

Without faith Baptism is of no use, although in itself it is an infinite, divine treasure. So this single expression, “He who believes,” is so potent that it excludes and rejects all works that we may do with the intention of meriting salvation through them. For it is certain that whatever is not faith contributes nothing toward salvation, and receives nothing.

However, it is often objected, “If Baptism is itself a work, and you say that works are of no use for salvation, what becomes of faith?” To this you may answer: Yes, it is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but God’s (for, as was said, you must distinguish Christ’s Baptism quite clearly from a bath-keeper’s baptism). God’s works, however, are salutary and necessary for salvation, and they do not exclude but rather demand faith, for without faith they could not be grasped. Just by allowing the water to be poured over you, you do not receive Baptism in such a manner that it does you any good. But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation. This the hand cannot do, nor the body, but the heart must believe it.

According to Luther, when one goes through doubt or struggle, one must cling to God's Word of promise:

To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, “But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body.” This is the reason why these two things are done in Baptism: the body has water poured over it, though it cannot receive anything but the water, and meanwhile the Word is spoken so that the soul may grasp it.

Luther and Romans 3:28

I was sent over this link from its author: Romans Chapter 3 Verse 28 (Updated). It's a well-constructed post examining the thrust of "alone" in Romans 3:28. Most interesting are the different renderings in different languages of the verse. Well done!

Addendum
Martin Yee (Lutheran Theology Study Group) has a concise post up on the same subject: Sola Fide - Luther's justified by faith "alone" in Romans 3:28.

Luther's Assurance of Salvation: Baptism

I came across an interesting article, Sola Fide: Luther and Calvin by Phillip Carey. I have to admit to not reading all of this article yet, but I found the article at least food for thought whether one agrees with it or not (I have initial reservations of some of his points in regard to Calvinism). One thing Carey does helpfully frame is the assurance of salvation in Luther's thought:

Luther’s Syllogism
Major premise: Christ told me, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and HolySpirit."
Minor premise: Christ never lies but only tells the truth.
Conclusion: I am baptized (i.e., I have new life in Christ).The major premise here is based on a Scriptural promise (Matt. 28:19)

I think there's still a problem with the epistemology of assurance here (with similarities to that which Carey charges to the account of Calvinism), but that's something for another time. The purpose of this little blog post is for my Reformed brethren. Luther, more often than not, links the assurance of salvation to baptism. Note the following from one of his most important writings, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church:

Now, the first thing to be considered about baptism is the divine promise, which says: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” [Mark 16:16]. This promise must be set far above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever else man has introduced, for on it all our salvation depends. But we must so consider it as to exercise our faith in it, and have no doubt whatever that, once we have been baptized, we are saved. For unless faith is present or is conferred in baptism, baptism will profit us nothing; indeed, it will become a hindrance to us, not only at the moment when it is received, but throughout the rest of our lives. That kind of unbelief accuses God’s promise of being a lie, and this is the greatest of all sins. If we set ourselves to this exercise of faith, we shall at once perceive how difficult it is to believe this promise of God. For our human weakness, conscious of its sins, finds nothing more difficult to believe than that it is saved or will be saved; and yet, unless it does believe this, it cannot be saved, because it does not believe the truth of God that promises salvation.

This message should have been impressed upon the people untiringly, and this promise should have been dinned into their ears without ceasing. Their baptism should have been called to their minds again and again, and their faith constantly awakened and nourished. For just as the truth of this divine promise, once pronounced over us, continues until death, so our faith in it ought never to cease, but to be nourished and strengthened until death by the continual remembrance of this promise made to us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from our sins or repent, we are merely returning to the power and the faith of baptism from which we fell, and finding our way back to the promise then made to us, which we deserted when we sinned. For the truth of the promise once made remains steadfast, always ready to receive us back with open arms when we return. And this, if I mistake not, is what they mean when they say, though obscurely, that baptism is the first sacrament and the foundation of all the others, without which none of the others can be received.

It will therefore be no small gain to a penitent to remember above all his baptism, and, confidently calling to mind the divine promise which he has forsaken, acknowledge that promise before his Lord, rejoicing that he is still within the fortress of salvation because he has been baptized, and abhorring his wicked ingratitude in falling away from its faith and truth. His heart will find wonderful comfort and will be encouraged to hope for mercy when he considers that the promise which God made to him, which cannot possibly lie, is still unbroken and unchanged, and indeed, cannot be changed by sins, as Paul says (II Tim. 2[:13]): “If we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.” This truth of God, I say, will sustain him, so that if all else should fail, this truth, if he believes in it, will not fail him. In it the penitent has a shield against all assaults of the scornful enemy, an answer to the sins that disturb his conscience, an antidote for the dread of death and judgment, and a comfort in every temptation—namely, this one truth—when he says: “God is faithful in his promises [Heb. 10:23; 11:11], and I received his sign in baptism. If God is for me, who is against me?” [Rom. 8:31].

The children of Israel, whenever they turned to repentance, remembered above all their exodus from Egypt, and remembering turned back to God who had brought them out. Moses impressed this memory and this protection upon them many times, and David afterwards did the same. How much more ought we to remember our exodus from Egypt, and by this remembrance turn back to him who led us through the washing of regeneration [Titus 3:5], remembrance of which is commended to us for this very reason! This can be done most fittingly in the sacrament of bread and wine. Indeed, in former times these three sacraments—penance, baptism, and the bread—were all celebrated at the same service, and each one supplemented the other. We also read of a certain holy virgin who in every time of temptation made baptism her sole defense, saying simply, “I am a Christian”; and immediately the enemy recognized the power of baptism and of her faith, which clung to the truth of a promising God, and fled from her.

Thus you see how rich a Christian is, that is, one who has been baptized! Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins, so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because he cannot deny himself if you confess him and faithfully cling to him in his promise. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction, along with all those carefully devised exercises of men: if you rely on them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is clone without faith in God’s truth is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit [Eccles. 1:2, 14]. Luther, M. (1999, c1959). Vol. 36: Luther's works, vol. 36 : Word and Sacrament II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (36:58-60). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

We as Reformed people need to understand the weight to which Luther places on baptism, and in my own experiences in Reformed circles, Luther's emphasis is not the current Reformed emphasis.  Carey certainly is correct pointing out how important Luther considered baptism in his overall theology. Sometimes we as Reformed people know nothing other than Luther's pummeling of free will in the Bondage of the Will. I'd say this is a one-dimensional view of Luther, and Lutherans have a correct concern as to whether we really understand Luther or not.

The Truth About Martin Luther and Why So Few Read His Works (Introduction)

Here's another collection of context-less Luther quotes: The Truth About Martin Luther and Why So Few Read His Works. Normally such a web page would be the handiwork of someone advocating Roman Catholicism. This web page though appears to be the work of what Luther would refer to as "Schwärmerei" or "Schwärmer." That's the term Luther used to describe the religious radicals of his day.

This page doesn't have an author attributed to it,  but it may be the work of the mastermind behind this web page. There are quite a number of Luther-related materials on this site, mostly dedicated to attacking Luther's view of baptism. In fact, the site offers a free 277-page pdf book dedicated to this topic: Martin Luther — Master Of Deceit, as well. I'm going to go through the quotes  presented on The Truth About Martin Luther and Why So Few Read His Works  web page (occasionally) over the next few months. Some of them I've covered already, some I haven't.

The author states,

"Luther was a troubled, surly, intemperate -- and occasionally even blasphemous -- man. Hardly the picture of a Spirit-led leader of the faith. Does this sound outrageous to you? Inconceivable? I'm not surprised. In fact, I myself was surprised to discover Luther's true nature. But once you read his own words, his nature is undeniable. In this document, you can review some of Luther's more surprising utterances for yourself. And don't think you can find them in any neighborhood bookstore, either. I had terrible trouble finding anything besides the great man's 'Small Catechism.' Even the highly sanitized anthologies of his work are not easy to locate -- if you can find them at all, it's usually in secular bookstores. Why the scarcity of Luther's writings in mainstream Protestant bookstores? I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge. But if you read the passages below, you may suspect — as I do — that Luther has been silenced because his true theology is an embarrassment to his followers. They would much rather propagate the image of the benevolent bombast, the passionate leader, the enlightened patriarch — because if people really know what Luther thought and taught, they would be appalled."

Well, the Internet has plenty of Luther's writings. Often these are presented by Lutherans and those interested in the Reformation, and this is really the way people access most of their information now. But in regard to bookstores, it's actually not that sinister. In my area, there were a number of Christian bookstores. Now with the Internet and online shopping, most of them have closed up. When those stores were open, they were typically filled with trinkets and popular current books, many of which had little depth or substance.  But, occasionally I would find a book by Luther in the Christian bookstore. The simple awful truth is that most bookstores want to sell books so they can pay their rent and feed their families. They need to sell books people want to buy, like a Joel Osteen book.

Since his work extends to more than 50 volumes, we won't even try to give an overview here. Instead, we'll be selecting some of his more surprising — and, yes, inflammatory — ideas. For the strength of a chain is determined by its weakest links. Now, an objection by those who have not read Luther first-hand will be, "These passages are taken out of context, and therefore they cannot be trusted as accurate representations of Luther's thought." However I will give citations for each excerpt. Go to the source and see for yourself. You'll find that not one of these passages means anything apart from what appears here; indeed, I challenge you to try to imagine any context that could possibly change the meaning of these words. Luther's meanings are all too clear.A further objection is that other of Luther's writings can be cited that contradict some of what you find here. We would reply that self-contradiction does not make an individual more reliable, but less.

Words do not mean what one wants them to mean. Rather, words are defined by their context. With any historical person, singular statements need to be read in context and properly placed within the contextual framework of of an overall theological paradigm and historical setting of that particular writer. In Luther's case, this is complicated by the fact that he lived in a different time period and in a different country.

The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in my words. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all. Luther certainly had warts and sins, but he did not "kick the cat" as well on the way to posting the 95 Theses. That is, he is not as bad as many portray him to be.


Addendum- Luther Said: 'Be a Sinner'
The first quote on this web page is one I've covered quite a few times. Here's how it's cited and interpreted by the author of The Truth About Martin Luther and Why So Few Read His Works:

"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day." ('Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;' 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).

Luther is actually saying that our actions -- even the most sinful actions imaginable -- don't matter! He is saying we can commit any sin we want -- willfully, presumptuously, purposefully -- and we will not offend God! After all, we require nothing more than "faith" to be saved. What we do is incidental. Of course anyone familiar with Scripture will point out that this is not a Christian teaching. For throughout the Bible we are told that sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). No believer has a license to sin. Christians who willfully sin WILL be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Romans 12:14; 1st Thessalonians 4:6).

Documentation: The "Wittenberg Project" refers to Project Wittenberg, an on-line source for Luther-related documents. " 'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521" refers to this web page from Project Wittenberg. If one looks at the page carefully, it isn't "The Wartburg Segment" but rather It's a letter Luther composed "From the Wartburg" and only a segment is translated.

Context

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner [LW 48:281-282].

Conclusion
I've written an extensive treatment of this quote: Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”? A Look at Justification By Faith Alone and Good Works in Luther’s Theology.

Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It's his style, and this statement is a perfect example. The first thing to recognize is that the sentence is a statement of comparison. Luther's point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives. Christians have a real savior. No amount of sin is too much to be atoned for by a perfect savior whose righteousness is imputed to the sinner who reaches out in faith.

But what then is the practical application of sinning “boldly”? What is at the heart of this comparison? Luther explains elsewhere how to take on the attitude of sinning “boldly”:

Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure[Ewald Plass, What Luther Says 3:1315].

The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” comes clear. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther compares the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

No historical information exists that indicts Melanchthon of ever murdering or fornicating, even once. The point Luther is making is not to go out and murder or fornicate as much as possible, but rather to point out the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s atonement. There is no sin that Christ cannot cover. His atonement was of an infinite value. That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

"You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums"

Well, it was bound to happen, I was cited with a 10 point infraction on the Catholic Answers Forums.

Today, 8:03 am

Eric Hilbert  Moderator Join Date: September 30, 2009 Location: Non-Catholic Religions Posts: 3,781 Religion: Catholic

You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums Dear TertiumQuid, You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums. Reason: Contempt for Catholicism ------- Contempt for Catholicism ------- This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire. Original Post: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9508522 Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Gabriel Serafin  Dear Mr. Swan, I'm sorry if my comments offended you; I was simply responding to the post in this thread. You are free to disagree with me, but . The use of "but" negates the apology. Is this typical of Roman Catholics, that they can compare something I wrote to the defense of a murderer? Recall it was stated of my blog entry, that I used the "same skill that O.J. Simpson attorneys rationalized away all the damning and obvious evidence". This is truly offensive, and if it were up to me, you would be banned. I assume because I'm Protestant, no one will call you out on this, and will simply let you get away with it. This is yet another reason why I will never convert to your religion. James Swan All the best, Catholic Answers Forums __________________ Forum Rules and guidelines

Addendum
In fairness to Catholic Answers:

They've allowed me on their forums since May 2004. Granted, I don't post all that often, so there's less opportunity for me to express my "contempt" for Romanism (I mean that in a humorous way). A fair amount of links back to this blog site (and alos aomin.org) have been posted on the Catholic Answers forums (most not by me), and to my knowledge, they have never deleted one of these links.

In this particular instance, a Roman Catholic compared my link about Luther and Romans 3:28 to the reasoning of O.J. Simpson's lawyers. Typically, I'd simply get a chuckle out of something like this and move on. This time, after the chuckle, I decided to experiment and ask the Roman Catholic saying this for an apology. He gave me the "I apologize... but" speech. In other words, he didn't apologize, nor did anyone else come to my defense.

So, after a few sips of coffee the other morning, with one eye open, I penned the comment that was given the infraction. What I think provoked the infraction was my final line: "This is yet another reason why I will never convert to your religion." And I do mean this. Other than a few people over the years, the majority of Roman advocates I've come across are the real anti-Catholics. More often than not, their demeanor is entirely like the zealot on the forum that provoked my ire.

In fairness again to the Catholic Answer moderator, he did remove the posts I took offense to as well. I'm not sure if the other person received an infraction or not. Let us keep this final thing in mind: Romanism has come a long way. Back in the 15th Century, they could've ripped out my tongue for alleged expressing "contempt" for Romanism.

Who is Larry Brinkin? A leader of the Gay Agenda recently arrested for child porn; and yet not much coverage in the Media

Another example of pro-homosexual media bias. 

Thanks Michael Brown, for bringing this out into the open.  Sunlight kills nasty mold that grows in the dark.  More and more, the homosexual agenda is getting exposed for what it really is.

Ephesians 5:3-14

³ But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. ⁴ Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. ⁵ For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. ⁶  Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. ⁷ Therefore do not become partners with them; ⁸ for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light ⁹ (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), ¹⁰ and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. ¹¹ Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.  ¹² For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. ¹³ But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, ¹⁴ for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

“Awake, O sleeper,

    and arise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.”

Addendum:  More Facts about Brinkin:

"Brinkin, who has a longtime partner and a teenage son, retired in 2010 after working for 22 years with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission.

In 1982, he was the first to use the phrase “domestic partner” in a lawsuit he filed against his then-employer Southern Pacific Railway. He claimed he was denied three days’ bereavement leave given to married employees after the loss of his partner of 11 years. Brinkin lost the case, which city officials said “laid the foundation for marriage equality.”

As a city employee, Brinkin helped implement and enforce the landmark San Francisco Equal Benefits Ordinance of 1997, the first in the U.S. to mandate that employers provide equal coverage for domestic partners. He also developed laws protecting against discrimination based on gender identity or a person’s height and weight.

Upon his retirement, Dufty introduced a Board of Supervisors resolution declaring the first seven days of February 2010 “Larry Brinkin Week” in honor of his advocacy.

Brinkin remains president of the board of directors for the California Association of Human Relations Organizations."  (my emphasis in bold)

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2012/06/child-porn-arrest-gay-rights-activist-stuns-san-francisco#ixzz20A5wbBE3

The Works of Zwingli (7 Volumes), Logos Bible Software Edition

While he's typically given a significant place in Reformation history, Zwingli's writings have not achieved the same level of popularity as those by Luther and Calvin.  Certainly this is due to the fact that he was not as good a writer and his Reformation career spanned a shorter length of time than Luther and Calvin.

It wasn't all that long ago here in cyberspace that tracking down anything of substance written by Zwingli in any language was futile, let alone English. Now Google books and a few other web sites have helpfully put up some of his works translated into English, most particularly,

The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 1

The Latin Works and the Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume 2

There is also a third volume to this series, but as of the writing of this blog entry, it isn't available on Google Books. Even when I looked around for a used copy of volume 3, there were only a few I was able to track down. I spent a few minutes trying to determine the contents of Volume 3, and it appears to include at least an English translation of Zwingli's Commentary on True and false Religion. While this treatise isn't online, it still is available in print.

Logos software has recently made available these three volumes with a few others in their recent software package, The Works of Zwingli (7 Vols.). The other four volumes in this set are as follows:

Huldreich Zwingli: The Reformer of German Switzerland (available on Google Books).

Zwingli: The Christian Education of Youth (available on Google Books)

Life of Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Patriot and Reformer (available on Google Books)

'Christ Our Captain': An Introduction to Huldrych Zwingli by Jim West (not available on Google Books, but available for a very reasonable price here. The author's blog can be found here, as is his description of working with Logos on this package).

Logos wants $70 for this package, and if you're like me, you're wondering why you would want to spend $70   on 7 books when 5 of them are already readily available for free. I have a fairly large collection of Logos books, and I appreciate the digital format. But, I also appreciate not spending $70 on books I really don't need to spend $70 on. Jim West's book is affordable. The only part of this Logos package that's worth it is Volume 3 of the old Latin Works /Correspondence set. But here's the thing: I've jumped the gun in the past and bought a pricey old book because it wasn't available online, only to find that book free online maybe a few months later.  I won't admit how often I've done this, but let's just say it's been more than once. For me, this Logos Zwingli set just isn't worth it.

An Example of How Zwingli Only Helps Rome When Quoted Out of Context

Here's Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, coming to the aid of Roman Catholic apologetics, compliments of a Roman Catholic apologist:

It is also not generally known that Luther's celebrated translation of the Bible, famous for the formative influence it had on the German language, may not have been entirely original. The Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, is quoted as having declared to Luther:

"You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors." [Alzog. III, 49, quoted in Patrick F. O'Hare, The Facts about Luther (pictured right) (Rockford, IL: Thomas A. Nelson Publishers, Inc., 1987), p. 191]

I've cut and pasted the above exactly as it's found here. This blog entry appears to be the work of Phillip Blosser. Blosser used the same Zwingli quote in his chapter, "Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura" as found in the book, Not By Scripture Alone (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Co., 1998). In this article, Blosser explains how previous to the Reformation there were ample translations of the Bible in German, and this points to the fact that pre-Reformation Catholicism had a high view of Scripture. Blosser then states,

"In fact, little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original. The Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, is quoted as having declared to Luther: 'You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You forget that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors.' "

I've gone into this quote before: "Little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original"...so says Philip Blosser. In this earlier entry I discussed Blosser's use of O'Hare, and pointed out the problems with his argumentation.  Blosser's argument here is that there were German Bibles in existence previous to Luther (true enough). The Zwingli quote is presented as icing on the cake, since Zwingli, a Protestant, appears to be stating this as well. Blosser goes a step further stating, "In fact, little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original." You see, Luther probably just did a medieval cut-and-paste from these earlier German translations, and even Zwingli knew it. In context though, Zwingli isn't referring to these earlier German translations of the Bible.

The Internet being what it is, I was able to locate an even larger context for Zwingli's remarks.

"When you make the boast that you were the first to lug forth the Bible from under the bench, you go, methinks, too far. If we examine who by their philological acquirements made it first known, we shall find it was, some years ago, Valla, and in our own times, Erasmus, the pious Reuchlin and Pettikan. Without their assistance, neither you nor others had effected what has now been done—I mean in so far as the work may be ascribed to man. But who dare boast himself? Is it not God alone who gives the increase? Are not Paul's words here in their place, 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7: 'I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase;' and 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be the praise.' On the other hand, I shall gladly recognise your merits. Although there were not a few, my good Luther, who knew the sum and substance of true religion as well as yourself, yet none in all Israel dared to come forward to the fight, so terribly they feared that dreadful Goliath that stood opposed to them in his full panoply and power. Here, here you were the true David, anointed by the Lord for the work. Wherefore, all believing souls will never cease to sing with joy and gladness, 'Saul hath slain his thousands, but David his tens of thousands. Now, as for myself, dear Luther, I have ever reverenced my teachers as fathers. If, then, out of the fulness which God has granted to you, anything had flowed to me, why should I not acknowledge it? Why, above all, if I had learned the contents of the gospel from you, should not I confess it? But I shall candidly tell you how it is. There were many distinguished men, long before the name of Martin Luther became famous, who truly recognised in what the essence of religion consisted, and who were instructed by very different teachers from those whom you suppose. For in respect of myself, I testify before God that I learned the substance and chief contents of the gospel partly by the perusal of John and the writings of Augustine, and partly by the diligent study of the Epistles of Paul in the original Greek, which, with this hand, I copied out eleven years ago, (1516,) eight of which years you have been ruling like a king." [source]

Mark Edwards identifies the treatise this comes from. It's from a lengthy reply of Zwingli to Luther entitled That These Words of Christ "This is My Body Which is Given for You," Will Forever Retain Their Ancient, Single Meaning, and Martin Luther with His Latest Book has by no Means Proved or Established His Own and the Pope's View. The Biblical translating work that Zwingli referred to was more recent work, done by some who were not hook-line-and-sinker in step with Rome. He wasn't referring to all the older German translations. Zwingli was referring to "philological acquirements" that made Luther's Bible translation possible.

America can only survive with old fashioned morals and ethics; but only God's grace saves from sin

A great way to celebrate this 4th of July is to watch the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with your family, after the cookout and fireworks show.  It is great to watch it again and notice all the biblical references and principles peppered throughout the film.  The character played by Jimmy Stewart read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bible during his filibuster in the movie.  He quotes Leviticus 19:18 and Jesus, "Love Thy neighbor" (Luke 10:25-37; Matthew 22:39-40) in his speech above.  They don't make films like that anymore.

We are grateful for our political freedom, but the left wing philosophy, socialism, anti-capitalism, the homosexual agenda, the pro-abortionists, so called "same sex marriage", the spread of Islam and those seeking to promote Sharia law and Jihad, Islamic terrorism; immorality; etc. - these things are slowly eroding our great country and political freedom.

False doctrines in the churches, the word of faith movement, greed, celebrity, pragmatism, liberal theology, the emerging church, lack of true love that motivates missions and evangelism, these things have made Evangelicalism loose it's salt. (Matthew 5:13-16)

Biblical morality and ethics thrived when there was a basic Christian cultural worldview, but morality and clean living doesn't save people.  (Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:16; 2:21; Romans 3:28; 4:1-8; 4:16; 5:1; 10:9-10; John 1:12)  We need the grace of God for that.  Hopefully, the Lord will expose the culture rot and cause more people to seek Him and cry out for grace and salvation.

That we lost our ability to choose good over evil by the wrong use of our free will  - See the article before this one on the issue of our free will and freedom and how that relates to grace and faith by Augustine.

Augustine on the Bondage of the will, Freedom and Free Will

Chapter 30.—Men are Not Saved by Good Works, Nor by the Free Determination of Their Own Will, But by the Grace of God Through Faith.

“But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid! For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”   (2 Peter 2:19)  This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?”  (John 8:36)  And before this redemption is wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, how can he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he be inflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrains when he says, “By grace are ye saved, through faith.” (Ephesians 2:8)

Chapter 31.—Faith Itself is the Gift of God; And Good Works Will Not Be Wanting in Those Who Believe.

And lest men should arrogate to themselves the merit of their own faith at least, not understanding that this too is the gift of God, this same apostle, who says in another place that he had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful”, (1 Corinthians 7:25) here also adds: “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)  And lest it should be thought that good works will be wanting in those who believe, he adds further: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)  We shall be made truly free, then, when God fashions us, that is, forms and creates us anew, not as men—for He has done that already—but as good men, which His grace is now doing, that we may be a new creation in Christ Jesus, according as it is said: “Create in me a clean heart, O God.”  (Psalm 51:10) For God had already created his heart, so far as the physical structure of the human heart is concerned; but the psalmist prays for the renewal of the life which was still lingering in his heart.”

Augustine, Enchiridion 30-31 (My own emphasis) 

John 8:34 - Jesus said, "Truly I say to you whoever commits sin is the slave of sin."

Romans 6:22 - "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life." 

"If you abide in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the Truth will set you free" Jesus John 8:31-32

On this Fourth of July, 2012 - we celebrate and are thankful to God for our political freedom, but even more, we believers in Jesus Christ are grateful to God and celebrate our true spiritual freedom from sin and the slavery to sin.  (Romans 6:6-7) 

Matthew 1:18; 25, Mary and "Until"

I was searching the blog, and came across an old post from 2009. It's a humorous response on the Roman Catholic exegesis of Matthew 1:18-25 and their curious interpretation of the word "until." Unfortunately, the link to the the author of the counter-argument below no longer works. Apparently, I found it on the Envoy Forum. It may perhaps originate from this banned person on the Catholic Answers forum.

Matthew 1:18-25
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “ Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “ God with us.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Catholic Answers:

Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. [source]

Counter-Argument
Are you married? If so, try telling your father-in-law this: "I did not have relations with your daughter until we got engaged." See what he thinks of that. After all, if your father-in-law is as perceptive as you are, there's no way he'll make a spurious assumption about pre-marital relations between the two of you based on such a statement.

It's fun to imagine these kinds of things....This is what it would look like, just for review: In casual conversation with your wife's dad, you mention that you didn't have (relations) with his daughter until you were engaged. After telling him not to read so much into an idiomatic statement and that he should stop being so historically ignorant, tell him your statement had nothing to do with what you guys did after the engagement. See how that flies.

Luther on Water Baptism: Use Milk, Beer, Brandy or Anything?

Here's a reference to an obscure Luther quote (from a Roman Catholic source):

Scripture knows no Baptism but that of which water is the matter, and Luther maintains that you may baptize with beer, milk, brandy, with any liquid whatever. Calvin also believes that the baptismal water is a metaphorical water. [source]

The quote is said to come from the Table Talk. With any obscure quote from the Table Talk, (unfortunately) it always must be pointed out Luther did not write the Table Talk. That said, it's possible this quote does come from that source, but as far as I've been able to surmise, the Roman Catholic author may have embellished a bit by adding milk and brandy, and more often than not, the context for this sort of comment has to do with emergency baptisms rather than simply a flippant "anything goes" method for regular baptism. For Luther, water was the typical means of baptism. Emergencies were something different.

Consider these statements from the current English edition of the Table Talk:

No. 394: Prenatal Baptisms Are Ridiculed December, 1532
“[According to Aristotle] the whole soul is in each and every part of the body. On this basis they [the papists] baptize a fetus which has not yet been fully brought into the world. Augustine treated of this at great length. If I prick my finger, my whole body feels it. Therefore, when I baptize a finger I baptize the whole body.
“I don’t wish to be baptized thus. But I don’t care about the element, whatever one may have. Indeed, it’s enough to speak the words. Let the children be committed to our Lord God. The baptism itself is of no concern to me. Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” [LW 54:61]

Dr. Jacob: “Should a child be baptized with wine? I hear that such a thing happened,” etc.
Dr. Luther: “If it’s done, it’s done by accident. So in this instance what happened was that in an emergency the poor women laid hold of wine, thinking it was something else. That child shouldn’t be baptized again because when I take something to be something—when I think it’s water, even if it really is something else—there’s no danger at all. Under the papacy priests often elevated water instead of wine.” [LW 54:425]

Consider as well this letter from Luther, late in his career:

To Nicolas Amsdorf, Concerning the dispensing of unconsecrated wafers.
January 11, 1546.
Grace and peace in Christ! As Dr. Cruciger and Dr. Major are absent, Pommer and I must answer you. First. It is not heedlessness, but rightdown wickedness of that curate to declare that consecrated and unconsecrated wafers (Hostien) are the same. Let him go to his Zwinglians. It is not necessary that a man who is not one of us should be kept in prison, whose word, and even oath, cannot be believed. Further, he who has partaken of an unconsecrated wafer has not sinned; for his faith has saved him, because he believed that he received the true sacrament, and trusted in God's Word, just as he who believes is baptized, although he who baptizes him plays with the ordinance, or uses some other fluid for the purpose. But we need not discuss this so minutely, in case of inflaming unenlightened consciences. It is enough that all is possible to him who believes. Regarding adulterated wafers, it would be well to burn them, although really not necessary, because they are no sacrament except in their actual use.! Even as baptismal water, except in its application in the rite, is no sacrament, even so Christ in this sacrament only operates on those who eat and believe.[source]

Consider though this comment from Martin Brecht:

Certainly in Luther's thought, the main power in baptism was the Word of God, not the water itself:

Similarly, the sophists also talk nonsense when they discuss how Baptism makes righteous. Thomas and Bonaventura think that some power for bringing this about has been given by God to the water when the child is baptized, with the result that the baptismal water brings about justification by its own power. In contrast, we say that the water is water, in no wise better in quality than that which a cow drinks. But we maintain that to the simple water the Word of promise has been added (Mark 16:16): “He that believes and is baptized will be saved”; likewise (John 3:5): “Man must be born again of water and the Spirit.” If someone should want to call this Word or this promise a power that has been given to the water of Baptism, I shall not object. But the idea of the sophists was something different. They do not attribute this power to the Word, but concerning the element they state that it has a special power given to it. Scotus speaks more correctly when he defines Baptism as a divine covenant standing by the element.
Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 1: Luther's works, vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (1:227). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Luther's Small Catechism:

9 How can water produce such great effects?
10 Answer: It is not the water that produces these effects, but the Word of God connected with the water, and our faith which relies on the Word of God connected with the water. For without the Word of God the water is merely water and no Baptism. But when connected with the Word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul wrote to Titus (3:5-8), “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. This saying is sure. Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church (349). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Does Paul Refer to Ongoing Authoritative Extra-Biblical Tradition in 2 Timothy?

What constitutes the ongoing infallible authority for the church? Roman Catholic apologists say it consists of Scripture + Tradition +  a Church magisterium (often referred to as"three-legged stool" model of authority).
Protestant  limit the infallible rule of faith to sacred Scripture. Two key passages relied on by Protestants are as follows:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Romans 16:25-27
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

In his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, David King has commented,

Sola Scriptura functions as the authoritative norm for the people of God, and therefore stands as the only existing source of the deposit of faith that special revelation has disclosed. This is one reason why Paul wrote as he did in his closing remarks in Romans. He spoke of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith' (Rom 16:25-26). According to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, Scripture has manifested this mystery, and this mystery is authoritatively interpreted by the epistles of the New Testament.

Scripture is therefore authoritatively specified (via apostolic sanction) as the God-ordained means for the manifestation of this mystery, the purpose being 'for obedience to the faith.' If unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?' (p.44)

Some Roman apologists claim Paul did not omit ongoling oral tradition as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture that was to function as an infallible rule of faith for the church. The most typical verse cited is 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15. I've dealt with that argument elsewhere, as have much abler writers (see David King's treatment on pages 119-121). I recently saw another proof offered for the Roman "three-legged stool" paradigm coming from one on the chief chapters Protestants rely on for sola scriptura, 2 Timothy 3.

2 Tim. 3:10; 14
10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me! 12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

Here Paul is said to be teaching an ongoing infallible extra-biblical tradition as a norm along side of sacred Scripture. But, as David King has pointed out above, saying such exists and proving it are two very different things. David rightly asks of any Roman apologist claiming such:

In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation. Regardless of the assertions of Roman apologists, when the dust settles, there is one question they cannot answer. Can you name one oral, extrabiblical tradition, demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ? No verifiable example has been or can be offered. We affirm with the Apostle Paul, 'that according to the Way which they call a sect (or heresy), so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets' (Acts 24:14).

Certainly we can agree with Rome's apologists that previous to the completion of the New Testament and the deaths of the apostles and New Testament writers, the Word of God had an oral dimension. We can certainly agree that Paul taught Timothy in an oral nature, and that teaching was the word of God (2 Timothy 1:13-14, What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us). David King though rightly states that "In the end, the matter of authoritative revelation boils down to a question of preservation." It certainly does. If extra-biblical infallible oral revelation intended for the Church exists,  where is it, and what is it? What did Paul teach Timothy other than what we have in the Bible, and where is it? As King said above, "If unwritten tradition was to be regarded as a reliable means and/or source for the preservation of binding revelation beyond the time of the apostles, and intended to function perpetually as an authoritative norm alongside Scripture, why did Paul fail to mention such a concept when speaking of 'the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began?" As the old TV commercial goes, the question Rome's apologists need answer is where's the beef?

Other Spurious Examples of Infallible Extra-Biblical Tradition
Along with 2 Tim. 3:10;14, a Roman apologist may put forth Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8-9 as an example of infallible extra-biblical tradition:

8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.

David King points out,

Roman apologists insist that the names of Jannes and Jambres would be unknown to us had they not been preserved by means of oral tradition. But this does not prove extrabiblical tradition, only inscripturated tradition. More importantly, the knowledge or ignorance of these names has no bearing on one's eternal destiny. This is not a matter of de fide even within the Church of Rome. Additionally, we draw from the witness of the Church father, Chrysostom, who said, 'Who are these [i.e., Jannes and Jambres]? The magicians in the time of Moses. But how is it their names are nowhere else introduced? Either they were handed down by tradition, or it is probable that Paul knew them by inspiration.' Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) wrote that, 'A great deal of foolishness has been written about how Paul could have known the names of these two men who resisted Moses.' Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) stated that, 'Paul takes the story of Jannes and Jambres not from holy Scripture but from unwritten Jewish tradition.'Instances of Alleged Support for Extra-Biblical Tradition. These examples demonstrate that there was a diversity of opinion among the early Church fathers themselves, thereby proving that there was no objective tradition current in their time. Perhaps, Theodore of Mopsuestia gave the best summation of speculative arguments over Paul's source when he spoke of the 'foolishness' that had been written about it. (p. 123).

Another popular argument using 2 Timothy against sola scriptura comes from 2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

David King points out,

While the defenders of Rome quote this passage in support of extra-biblical traditions, we know that this was no secret deposit or esoteric oral tradition. Tertullian wrote:

What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, 'This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?' and also of that precept of which he says, 'I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?' Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: 'Before many witnesses' is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these 'many witnesses,' it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced 'before many witnesses.' Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to 'commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,' be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says 'these things,' he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself. (emphasis mine).

According to Tertullian, Paul committed to 'faithful men,' who in turn passed on this deposit of truth, the things of which 'he is writing at the moment.' It had nothing to do with extrabiblical traditions. It was a succession of apostolic teaching, not a succession of men.

Among the things Paul conveyed, in this epistle, was his own instruction regarding the sufficiency of holy Scripture. Thus, this 'proof' text does not support the Roman contention regarding an oral deposit of doctrine passed down through successive generations in the Church. (pp.122-123).

Conclusion
These few examples demonstrate that David King's book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, is of immense value in dealing with Roman apologists.  To this date, no Roman Catholic apologist has offered any sort of meaningful comprehensive counter-response. Those that have made attempts typically start, but give up. I can think of at least two Roman Catholic apologists that guaranteed full rebuttals, but quickly gave up. Some actually make arguments against King's book, not even realizing he's already answered their argument. For instance, one Roman apologist mentions Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8-9 as an example of infallible extra-biblical tradition that refutes King, apparently not even realizing King's book included a section on Jannes and Jambres.